Discussion:
Brawn - get rid of grid penalties and get rid of DRS
(too old to reply)
Bobster
2017-09-01 06:06:43 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/131532/f1-has-to-drop-grid-penalties--brawn

Says the fans don't like their heroes being sent to the back of the grid because an engine or gearbox got changed.

It seems to me that what he's talking about RE the grid penalties is not a free pass for an engine change, but having it not affect a race that people paid money to see.

He'll need to do something about payments to the teams though, because some teams would be less affected by a loss of WCC points than others, and one in particular probably would sacrifice quite a lot of such points if they could change parts and get a WDC.

The aero... I think his points are valid but now new. There have been previous attempts to try to come up with aero regs that would allow cars to run closer together.

Two differences this time
1) One of the smartest operators in F1 in recent times is going to turn his mind to the problem
2) The CRH seems to really want to tackle this one, instead of just leaving it to FIA.
Bigbird
2017-09-01 09:40:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Bobster wrote:
https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/131532/f1-has-to-drop-grid-penalties--brawn
Post by Bobster
Says the fans don't like their heroes being sent to the back of the
grid because an engine or gearbox got changed.
It seems to me that what he's talking about RE the grid penalties is
not a free pass for an engine change, but having it not affect a race
that people paid money to see.
He'll need to do something about payments to the teams though,
because some teams would be less affected by a loss of WCC points
than others, and one in particular probably would sacrifice quite a
lot of such points if they could change parts and get a WDC.
The aero... I think his points are valid but now new. There have
been previous attempts to try to come up with aero regs that would
allow cars to run closer together.
Two differences this time
1) One of the smartest operators in F1 in recent times is going to
turn his mind to the problem 2) The CRH seems to really want to
tackle this one, instead of just leaving it to FIA.
Like a lot of things in F1 that is generally disliked reasonable
alternatives are thin on the ground.
geoff
2017-09-01 11:57:30 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bigbird
Like a lot of things in F1 that is generally disliked reasonable
alternatives are thin on the ground.
An alternative to DRS would be tracks wide enough to prepare and
overtake on.


geoff
News
2017-09-01 12:49:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by geoff
Post by Bigbird
Like a lot of things in F1 that is generally disliked reasonable
alternatives are thin on the ground.
An alternative to DRS would be tracks wide enough to prepare and
overtake on.
geoff
Ditch the Tilkedromes!
Bobster
2017-09-01 13:31:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by News
Post by geoff
An alternative to DRS would be tracks wide enough to prepare and
overtake on.
geoff
Ditch the Tilkedromes!
Is Spa a Tilkedrome? We know the answer to that.

Did you see lots of slipstreaming and overtaking at the front at Spa?

This year's cars produce a lot of dirty air. They are faster, but they are also harder to get behind - irrespective of the track.

Brawn, who can be assumed to know at least a little about such things, is proposing a better set of aero regulations.
News
2017-09-01 13:50:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bobster
Post by News
Post by geoff
An alternative to DRS would be tracks wide enough to prepare and
overtake on.
geoff
Ditch the Tilkedromes!
Is Spa a Tilkedrome? We know the answer to that.
It was effectively Tilke'd, in key spots, others abandoned outright.
Post by Bobster
Did you see lots of slipstreaming and overtaking at the front at Spa?
This year's cars produce a lot of dirty air. They are faster, but they are also harder to get behind - irrespective of the track.
Brawn, who can be assumed to know at least a little about such things, is proposing a better set of aero regulations.
Good luck. Reminiscent of the ill-conceived "Center Downforce Wing".
Bigbird
2017-09-01 13:25:19 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by geoff
Post by Bigbird
Like a lot of things in F1 that is generally disliked reasonable
alternatives are thin on the ground.
An alternative to DRS would be tracks wide enough to prepare and
overtake on.
An alternative to DRS might be far simpler aerodynamics. The more
complex the front wing the more they seem affected by dirty air. The
other major advantage is cost.
bra
2017-09-01 15:13:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by geoff
An alternative to DRS would be tracks wide enough to prepare and
overtake on.
Geoff
Thanks, Geoff --- something I have thought for years, and for most types of race track. There would still be a best line, and drivers would still fight for it, but some cars and some drivers would be able to use other lines. And the spectacle would improve, and perhaps we'd have fewer bangs and bumps. A wide track doe snot at all demand less skill.
Sir Tim
2017-09-01 15:32:44 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bra
Post by geoff
An alternative to DRS would be tracks wide enough to prepare and
overtake on.
Geoff
Thanks, Geoff --- something I have thought for years, and for most types
of race track. There would still be a best line, and drivers would still
fight for it, but some cars and some drivers would be able to use other
lines. And the spectacle would improve, and perhaps we'd have fewer bangs
and bumps. A wide track doe snot at all demand less skill.
"Doe snot"? Sounds like some sort of bunny bogie :-)
bra
2017-09-01 16:44:55 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Friday, September 1, 2017 at 8:32:47 AM UTC-7, Sir Tim wrote:

A wide track doe snot at all demand less skill.
Post by Sir Tim
"Doe snot"? Sounds like some sort of bunny bogie :-)
Wow, that was one of my best.

Gives me an opportunity to quote one of the top ten best typographical errors, which appeared at the close of a job application letter one of my students asked me to look at (thank god before mailing):

"I look forward to meeting you shorty."
FB
2017-09-01 18:33:43 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bigbird
Like a lot of things in F1 that is generally disliked reasonable
alternatives are thin on the ground.
An alternative to DRS would be tracks wide enough to prepare and overtake
on.
geoff
no, the self-destructing tyres leave too much crap on track to make it
useable...

FB
geoff
2017-09-02 00:52:48 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by FB
Post by Bigbird
Like a lot of things in F1 that is generally disliked reasonable
alternatives are thin on the ground.
An alternative to DRS would be tracks wide enough to prepare and overtake
on.
geoff
no, the self-destructing tyres leave too much crap on track to make it
useable...
FB
So fix that aspect too.

geoff
Bobster
2017-09-02 04:55:20 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by geoff
Post by FB
Post by Bigbird
Like a lot of things in F1 that is generally disliked reasonable
alternatives are thin on the ground.
An alternative to DRS would be tracks wide enough to prepare and overtake
on.
geoff
no, the self-destructing tyres leave too much crap on track to make it
useable...
FB
So fix that aspect too.
Have they not? There seem a lot less concerns about tyre life this year, and allowing three choices introduces a variable in the tactics.

It is a contrivance introduced to spice up the races, but I think that we sometimes get rosy memories about an F1 that was never there. Looking after tyres was part of the game when I started following F1 in the early 70s, and overtaking happened, sure, but it wasn't an overtake fest except maybe at Monza with all the slip streaming that went on there.

Here's the question: Is the entertainment better or worse than if the tyre regulations had not been changed and DRS not introduced?
~misfit~
2017-09-02 04:07:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by FB
Post by geoff
Post by Bigbird
Like a lot of things in F1 that is generally disliked reasonable
alternatives are thin on the ground.
An alternative to DRS would be tracks wide enough to prepare and
overtake on.
geoff
no, the self-destructing tyres leave too much crap on track to make it
useable...
FB
Yep. IMO that was one of the biggest mistakes F1 made. They tried to make
the races 'more interetsing' by forcing more pitstops but doing so in the
manner they chose introduced more problems than it solved.

When I try a new medication for my back pain they are always a trade-off
between benefits and undesirable side-effects which need to be balanced and
then a decision made. It seems (to me at least) that the side effects of
frangible tyres far outweigh the benefits.

Another of the side-effects is that drivers spend far too much time nursing
tyres rather than pushing them to their limits. I'd rather see less grippy
compounds (after all they're wider now) that are able to be pushed hard for
a decent time than the sick joke of a situation that they currently have. I
mean go hard for *one lap* then your tyres are shot? Who thinks this is good
for F1?
--
Shaun.

"Humans will have advanced a long, long way when religious belief has a cozy
little classification in the DSM*."
David Melville (in r.a.s.f1)
(*Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders)
b***@topmail.co.nz
2017-09-02 09:17:56 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bigbird
Like a lot of things in F1 that is generally disliked reasonable
alternatives are thin on the ground.
make the boost from KERS only available to overtake under same restrictions
as DRS flap.
~misfit~
2017-09-02 12:16:19 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by b***@topmail.co.nz
Post by Bigbird
Like a lot of things in F1 that is generally disliked reasonable
alternatives are thin on the ground.
make the boost from KERS only available to overtake under same
restrictions as DRS flap.
In that case I think the activation gap would have to be taken out to 5
seconds at least otherwise there's far less incentive to keep it 'green' and
efficient. (If by "KERS" you mean the hybrid portion of the PU. Otherwise
seperating what energy comes from MGU-K and what energy comes from the MGU-H
would be very difficult.)
--
Shaun.

"Humans will have advanced a long, long way when religious belief has a cozy
little classification in the DSM*."
David Melville (in r.a.s.f1)
(*Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders)
Bobster
2017-09-03 05:12:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by b***@topmail.co.nz
Post by Bigbird
Like a lot of things in F1 that is generally disliked reasonable
alternatives are thin on the ground.
make the boost from KERS only available to overtake under same restrictions
as DRS flap.
Hmmm... that goes against the idea of encouraging better use of "green" technology. IMO they should liberalise the ERS, maybe just have dimension and weight limits on the battery pack and reward the guys who can make the most efficient use of the recycled energy. If, with the same fuel limits and the same basic configuration as everybody else, can harvest more energy or recycle it more efficiently, then good for you.

An Indy style boost button is worth some consideration. In Indy the drivers can use this whenever they want, but total use over a race distance is controlled by the standard ECU. So it's a limited resource, but limited by duration, not by circumstances. They can also use it defensively to protect their position.

Sometimes a driver may use too much too early and not be able to defend themselves at the end of the race. Of course there is also a potential trap of not using it all.
Willsy
2017-09-01 12:53:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bobster
https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/131532/f1-has-to-drop-grid-penalties--brawn
Says the fans don't like their heroes being sent to the back of the grid because an engine or gearbox got changed.
It seems to me that what he's talking about RE the grid penalties is not a free pass for an engine change, but having it not affect a race that people paid money to see.
He'll need to do something about payments to the teams though, because some teams would be less affected by a loss of WCC points than others, and one in particular probably would sacrifice quite a lot of such points if they could change parts and get a WDC.
The aero... I think his points are valid but now new. There have been previous attempts to try to come up with aero regs that would allow cars to run closer together.
Two differences this time
1) One of the smartest operators in F1 in recent times is going to turn his mind to the problem
2) The CRH seems to really want to tackle this one, instead of just leaving it to FIA.
It's simple to fix.

Simply add a negative number of points to the *teams* constructor championship
score, and leave the driver un-affected.

What could be simpler than that?
Bigbird
2017-09-01 13:17:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/131532/f1-has-to-drop-grid-penalties--brawn
Post by Willsy
Post by Bobster
Says the fans don't like their heroes being sent to the back of the
grid because an engine or gearbox got changed.
It seems to me that what he's talking about RE the grid penalties
is not a free pass for an engine change, but having it not affect a
race that people paid money to see.
He'll need to do something about payments to the teams though,
because some teams would be less affected by a loss of WCC points
than others, and one in particular probably would sacrifice quite a
lot of such points if they could change parts and get a WDC.
The aero... I think his points are valid but now new. There have
been previous attempts to try to come up with aero regs that would
allow cars to run closer together.
Two differences this time
1) One of the smartest operators in F1 in recent times is going to
turn his mind to the problem 2) The CRH seems to really want to
tackle this one, instead of just leaving it to FIA.
It's simple to fix.
Simply add a negative number of points to the teams constructor
championship score, and leave the driver un-affected.
What could be simpler than that?
So you earn new engines by winning races... helping you win more
races...

Not really the equitable solution that would improve the situation.

The driver is benefitting from the new engine... why leave him
unaffected?
Bobster
2017-09-01 13:28:54 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Willsy
Post by Bobster
Two differences this time
1) One of the smartest operators in F1 in recent times is going to turn his mind to the problem
2) The CRH seems to really want to tackle this one, instead of just leaving it to FIA.
It's simple to fix.
Simply add a negative number of points to the *teams* constructor championship
score, and leave the driver un-affected.
What could be simpler than that?
Well, Brawn alluded to this - WCC penalty points for an engine change. But some teams receive an extra slice of the FOM pie for just turning up, and Ferrari basically doesn't care about the WCC because they get so much extra anyway.

So the loss for taking a new engine is not the same for all teams.
Loading...